SENSATION AT PARADE

[The Real Number 3]

Timmy Martin is a great lad. Remember the days when i played underage at Centrals with him. You'd think proffesional clubs these days wouldnt make blunders like that

[SimonH]

Without debating the rights and wrongs of the decision, presuming Norwood had any say in it I don't think the call should be theirs to make. The umpires' job is to umpire and the officials' job to officiate. For example, playing unregistered players might be outside the rules 'n' all, but if you can convince the other side to agree, we'll overlook it? Sounds like a recipe for corruption ('we'll agree to X if you let us have Y' or worse, 'a quiet sum in a brown paper bag and we'll agree to X').

The fact that both clubs agree doesn't make it legal; case in point being where Sydney Swans reserves swapped players with a desperately undermanned Weston Creek last year to even up the game, and the ACTAFL stripped both teams of points from the game. For a competition to have credibility as a genuine comp rather than mates kicking a ball around, it needs a disinterested third party to make the hard calls about compliance with the rules, on the field or off.

[BPBRB]

Without debating the rights and wrongs of the decision, presuming Norwood had any say in it I don't think the call should be theirs to make. The umpires' job is to umpire and the officials' job to officiate. For example, playing unregistered players might be outside the rules 'n' all, but if you can convince the other side to agree, we'll overlook it? Sounds like a recipe for corruption ('we'll agree to X if you let us have Y' or worse, 'a quiet sum in a brown paper bag and we'll agree to X').

The fact that both clubs agree doesn't make it legal; case in point being where Sydney Swans reserves swapped players with a desperately undermanned Weston Creek last year to even up the game, and the ACTAFL stripped both teams of points from the game. For a competition to have credibility as a genuine comp rather than mates kicking a ball around, it needs a disinterested third party to make the hard calls about compliance with the rules, on the field or off.

Crap SimonH - your examples are rubbish re the interchange scenario. A a team sheet error with the wrong interchange players marked is hardly playing an unregistered player or giving the opposition another player to even things up. The fact is Norwood went into the game knowing it would be 18 against 18 with 3 on the bench for both sides and if we had not made the error, would Norwood be screaming for a 2 man advantage because they couldn't win on an even playing field!

Desperate - and they still couldn't win.

[JK]

Without debating the rights and wrongs of the decision, presuming Norwood had any say in it I don't think the call should be theirs to make. The umpires' job is to umpire and the officials' job to officiate. For example, playing unregistered players might be outside the rules 'n' all, but if you can convince the other side to agree, we'll overlook it? Sounds like a recipe for corruption ('we'll agree to X if you let us have Y' or worse, 'a quiet sum in a brown paper bag and we'll agree to X').

The fact that both clubs agree doesn't make it legal; case in point being where Sydney Swans reserves swapped players with a desperately undermanned Weston Creek last year to even up the game, and the ACTAFL stripped both teams of points from the game. For a competition to have credibility as a genuine comp rather than mates kicking a ball around, it needs a disinterested third party to make the hard calls about compliance with the rules, on the field or off.

Crap SimonH - your examples are rubbish re the interchange scenario. A a team sheet error with the wrong interchange players marked is hardly playing an unregistered player or giving the opposition another player to even things up. The fact is Norwood went into the game knowing it would be 18 against 18 with 3 on the bench for both sides and if we had not made the error, would Norwood be screaming for a 2 man advantage because they couldn't win on an even playing field!

Desperate - and they still couldn't win.

Fair enough mate, I can understand Rooster fan's angst toward Norwood's "desperate" decision, and you know how I feel about that too ... But in one respect Simon does have a point, a rule should be solid and either enforced/acted upon/vetoed etc, by a ruling body, not those who have to abide by it.

I'm not excusing the decision my club made though.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

Without debating the rights and wrongs of the decision, presuming Norwood had any say in it I don't think the call should be theirs to make. The umpires' job is to umpire and the officials' job to officiate. For example, playing unregistered players might be outside the rules 'n' all, but if you can convince the other side to agree, we'll overlook it? Sounds like a recipe for corruption ('we'll agree to X if you let us have Y' or worse, 'a quiet sum in a brown paper bag and we'll agree to X').

The fact that both clubs agree doesn't make it legal; case in point being where Sydney Swans reserves swapped players with a desperately undermanned Weston Creek last year to even up the game, and the ACTAFL stripped both teams of points from the game. For a competition to have credibility as a genuine comp rather than mates kicking a ball around, it needs a disinterested third party to make the hard calls about compliance with the rules, on the field or off.

Crap SimonH - your examples are rubbish re the interchange scenario. A a team sheet error with the wrong interchange players marked is hardly playing an unregistered player or giving the opposition another player to even things up. The fact is Norwood went into the game knowing it would be 18 against 18 with 3 on the bench for both sides and if we had not made the error, would Norwood be screaming for a 2 man advantage because they couldn't win on an even playing field!

Desperate - and they still couldn't win.

I agree with SimonH. Otherwise, whats the point of listing bench players on a team sheet? The rules are there for a reason and if you get it wrong, you suffer the consequences I reckon. In the last qtr when the game was there to be won, North had 1 less player than Norwood on the bench, no big disadvantage.
Great win by North in an entertaining game, be happy with that and quit your whinging.

[Dogwatcher]

A rule's a rule.
Next thing opposition clubs and supporters will be asking players to give up free kicks they've erroneously received...

"It's okay ump, he didn't push me in the back, I fell over, here have the ball back." Yeah right.

[Grahaml]

North made the mistake, not Norwood. Norwood shouldn't be called on to be generous and allow them to play, and I think any fans who are disappointed should aim that sentiment squarely at the team who made the mistake. This is league footy and officials of clubs who have time to prepare things like that shouldn't be allowed leeway for errors, no matter how trivial they might be.

[topsywaldron]

North made the mistake, not Norwood. Norwood shouldn't be called on to be generous and allow them to play, and I think any fans who are disappointed should aim that sentiment squarely at the team who made the mistake. This is league footy and officials of clubs who have time to prepare things like that shouldn't be allowed leeway for errors, no matter how trivial they might be.

Imagine if the converse happened to North in a Preliminary Final and CDFC listed the Gowans boys on the ground on their team sheet but started them on the bench. If you honestly expect me to believe that North would not do exactly the same as Norwood did the other night then I'm afraid I simply don't belive you.

Can you imagine the howls of protest from success starved North fans if the Rooster officials just smiled and stepped aside as James and Chris ran on to the oval?

[Grahaml]

Exactly. The standards of professionalism must be met by the clubs, no matter the situation, no matter the players, no matter the team affected.

[Dogwatcher]

I concur.

We wore Heath Hopwood in the grand final that time.
I guess it's easy to say that when we won by so much, but if it had been closer, I certainly wouldn't have been angry at the ruling officers, rather our officials.

Having said that, it must be nice for North to be able to say they won in such challenging circumstances.

[davesa]

My understanding of the sequence of events was:-

1. The match interchange steward from SANFL has a copy of the team sheet and noticed the players who left the ground were 2 different from the players detailed on the sheet.
2. At the same time the Norwood coaching staff realised the same (for match-ups, opposition gets copy of teamsheet as well) and asked their team manager on the bench to investigate.
3. The NFC team manager referred to SANFL steward who confirmed a rule had been broken and what the penalty was.
4. The SANFL steward asked NFC manager if NFC wanted the penalty to apply, the NAFC team manager asked for understanding and leniency as a genuine error was made.
5. NFC team manager advised NAFC and SANFL steward that it was wish of the NFC Senior coach the penalty be applied as per the rule book.
6. SANFL steward applied thr rule as per the rule book.

In short everyone followed the rules to the letter literally when the breach was found. Within the rules YES, within the spirit of the game probably not.

[G]

In this case Norwood did nothing wrong and shouldnt be held to ridicule for an error by the North hierachy which would be disappointing in the local under 11's. Once you are out there, I've always said never give a sucker an even break and if the boot was on the other foot, especially against sat the Doggies in a final, I would expect North to do exactly the same !

[SimonH]

Crap SimonH - your examples are rubbish re the interchange scenario. A a team sheet error with the wrong interchange players marked is hardly playing an unregistered player or giving the opposition another player to even things up. The fact is Norwood went into the game knowing it would be 18 against 18 with 3 on the bench for both sides and if we had not made the error, would Norwood be screaming for a 2 man advantage because they couldn't win on an even playing field!

Desperate - and they still couldn't win.

Not sure if you've deliberately missed the point, or just didn't think before you posted. Of course the examples are of different things to a team sheet and interchange error-- that's why they're called 'examples'. In case you did grasp the point, please tell me why you think that the game should be governed by agreement with the opposition side, rather than by SANFL officials?

Norwood were sticklers for the rules, even though the opposition didn't get any unfair advantage by breaking them. Some people think that they should have agreed to the rules being bent, in order to help the opposition out of their stuff-up. Fair enough. My point remains, why should they be placed in that position at all? If you're getting paid by the SANFL to officiate, officiate. In the version of events given by davesa, Norwood were straight-up. The tricky thing would have been for Norwood to say to the steward, 'we're not making any comment, you do your job', and then to have North stripped of the points after the game if the blokes were told they could play.

Anyone remember the Vic/SA game where the Vics decided that they were going to play an extra interchange player (as was the trend in the VFL at the time), and the SANFL and NFL (or whoever the coordinating body was) didn't agree to it; but they turned up and played an extra bloke anyway? IIRC, the Vics won sufficiently convincingly on the park that there could be no suggestion the extra interchange made any difference to the scoreboard. Nonetheless, the match was awarded to SA by default. As you'd expect.

[BPBRB]

Well as Jars said tonight on 5AA he would not have envoked the rule that the players could not play if he were in the same situation as Trevor Hill. Cornesy agreed and his words thought it was "pathetic" and he often doesn't side with North on anything. Jars said tonight that when the I/Change steward advised both clubs - both Team Managers were fine to let the players play and correct the mistake but Jamie Mason overheard the conversation and given that the final say must be given by the other coach, he advised Trevor Hill who said No. At least Norwoods Team Manager is not a desperate. Sad to think that both Hill and his Football Manager Jamie Mason are former players and coaches at North.

As for an earlier earlier comment by topsy that North would have done the same thing in GF if it was Centrals and the two players were the Gowans well we wouldn't lower ourselves. As we heard tonight Jars wouldn't do it and despite being sucess starved I wouldn't think that our club would lower itself to use a technical advantage that is not at the end of the day "fair" as far as an even playing field at the start but within the rules. Imagine the the sh*t that would be thrown at North to win a game (and flag) having the availability of 2 more players than the opposition and more to the point not being able to say you beat their best in that circumstance.

As I said before Norwood are a desperate club at present that didn't have the balls to go head to head on an even playing field and used a technical rule to get some sort of advantage which in the end didn't work. If you can't back your named 21 against the other teams named 21 and hope they stuff up to give you an advantage then you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. As it is there are enough variations after the bounce to give you an advantage - injuries in play, weather conditions changing, umpring decisions at critical times and poor positional moves by an opposition coach. How much more do the desperates like Norwood need?

For anyone who wants to read North's official response/thoughts on the matter go to the main page of http://www.nafc.com.au. and you can clearly read between the lines as to what North now think of the desperate Norwood FC.

One day it will come back and bite Norwood in some shape or form and I hope it is against North.

[fester69]

Jamie Mason sent a reply after Jarman was on and claimed at no stage was Hill asked, they didn't know about Martin until informed by league officials and when the O'Hara mistake was noticed by NFC Mason said to the NAFC official that it would be discussed at 1/4 time. He said that the NAFC never got back to him. If NAFC are too stupid stiff s#*t!

[JK]

Well as Jars said tonight on 5AA he would not have envoked the rule that the players could not play if he were in the same situation as Trevor Hill. Cornesy agreed and his words thought it was "pathetic" and he often doesn't side with North on anything. Jars said tonight that when the I/Change steward advised both clubs - both Team Managers were fine to let the players play and correct the mistake but Jamie Mason overheard the conversation and given that the final say must be given by the other coach, he advised Trevor Hill who said No. At least Norwoods Team Manager is not a desperate. Sad to think that both Hill and his Football Manager Jamie Mason are former players and coaches at North.

As for an earlier earlier comment by topsy that North would have done the same thing in GF if it was Centrals and the two players were the Gowans well we wouldn't lower ourselves. As we heard tonight Jars wouldn't do it and despite being sucess starved I wouldn't think that our club would lower itself to use a technical advantage that is not at the end of the day "fair" as far as an even playing field at the start but within the rules. Imagine the the sh*t that would be thrown at North to win a game (and flag) having the availability of 2 more players than the opposition and more to the point not being able to say you beat their best in that circumstance.

As I said before Norwood are a desperate club at present that didn't have the balls to go head to head on an even playing field and used a technical rule to get some sort of advantage which in the end didn't work. If you can't back your named 21 against the other teams named 21 and hope they stuff up to give you an advantage then you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. As it is there are enough variations after the bounce to give you an advantage - injuries in play, weather conditions changing, umpring decisions at critical times and poor positional moves by an opposition coach. How much more do the desperates like Norwood need?

For anyone who wants to read North's official response/thoughts on the matter go to the main page of http://www.nafc.com.au. and you can clearly read between the lines as to what North now think of the desperate Norwood FC.

One day it will come back and bite Norwood in some shape or form and I hope it is against North.

So Norwood are a desperate club, even though just ONE person made the decision?? As I've said before, I can understand you guys being unhappy about whats happened, but don't see the point in bagging the entire club.

[Wedgie]

Im not unhappy, Im extremely happy about it.
Imagine the Norwood players in the next 2 encounters against North knowing they couldn't beat North with 2 more players even when favourite on their own home ground?
Might as well as chalk up the 4 points for North already.
If it was a Norwood decision it was a shocking decision.
If it was a North stuff up it was a brilliant stuff up!
I agree with James H in that decisions like this shouldn't be discretionary and should be cut and dry and enforced only by officials.

Also an interesting aside and more interesting discussion point is that it was the first time this year and very rare to happen at all at Prospect in the last 4 years that North got no injuries from the game, I'm just wondering how much if at all stopping and starting off the interchange bench may contribute to injuries looking at the evidence of Friday night?

[mal]

Jamie Mason sent a reply after Jarman was on and claimed at no stage was Hill asked, they didn't know about Martin until informed by league officials and when the O'Hara mistake was noticed by NFC Mason said to the NAFC official that it would be discussed at 1/4 time. He said that the NAFC never got back to him. If NAFC are too stupid stiff s#*t!

If anyone can confirm this it changes things.....

[BPBRB]

Jamie Mason sent a reply after Jarman was on and claimed at no stage was Hill asked, they didn't know about Martin until informed by league officials and when the O'Hara mistake was noticed by NFC Mason said to the NAFC official that it would be discussed at 1/4 time. He said that the NAFC never got back to him. If NAFC are too stupid stiff s#*t!

The fax was from your Team Manager (John somebody?) - not your Football Manager who is Jamie Mason. If you heard Jars comments tonight and read the official release on nafc.com.au then your team Manager is basically accusing North of lying as to what happened.

So now everyone at North is lying and Norwood are above reproach hey?

P.S. CP - your right, I apologise for branding your whole club desperate - just some of your Football Dept.

[manny]

Wedgie the trouble wth North playing Norwood at Prospect later in the year is that its closer to the finals and we all know how the choaks perform the closer we get to the business end. To paraphrase you Imagine the North players as the year unfolds remembering last year playing Norwood when they had the finals to play for and got done by a side out of the five playing only for pride. Making statements to the effect that Norwood couldnt beat North with 2 less players is pure sophistry. They had a full team on the ground, they just had an interchange disadvantage brought on by their unprofessionalism. What cracks me up is number of other writers trying to blame Norwood for the fiasco.